Human Ideas Of Work

Pic not related btw

>>974423

Sedentary hedonism makes you worthless.

Overcoming is where it's at

A NEET can hypothetically seek to overcome himself, but this is rarely the case.

A career can be an avenue or self-affirmation, or even a mundane job, but the mileage varies.

>>974519
you would overcome to find yourself in a mundane job that you resent in the end

Is there any point in looking for a job you enjoy or is that a fool's errand?

>>974562
The point isn't to bring punishment upon yourself, but to be able to master your own hedonistic wishes that prevent you from finding true freedom.

NEETs are essentially humans that can't overcome themselves. Even though people everywhere give advice such as getting a hobby, working out, or learning on their own NEETs refuse to do so.

>>974423

>Ralph blows conservatism the fuck out of the water

What year did he say this?

>>975782

Great, so we can give everyone the same amount of wealth, and they will all be equal.

IT IS LIKELY THAT THE MAN WHO IMAGINES RAPING FICTIONAL WOMEN WOULD INTEND TO RAPE REAL WOMEN

>>974423
I don't think it's nessasary to work these day. You can work on Internet without being oficcially employed.

>>975799

For most people, striving for equality is the pulling in the same direction as striving for an improvement of their lives. So if people are looking out for their own interests, and the government reflects that, they would tend towards equality.

And we should want everyone to have wealth (doesn't have to be equal, but the closer the better) so the market can function optimally. The finance industry is not all that helpful to the market.

>>975846

People want to have more than they currently have, up to a point. For most people this would mean a move towards equality is a move in the right direction.

More people having more capital to spend will be good for everyone, I actually believe in free markets. Less money being given to the finance industry would be better for the economy as a whole.


>worlds average

Okay, you're talking about a hypothetical global leveling campaign. I'm not.

>>975901

That example doesn't describe any real world situation.

In real life, John and Jim must have been working together, if the question is over how to divide up money between them. This question doesn't come up if they aren't working together. And the 40k/60k doesn't come from magic wishes, it comes from selling some product or service. If John is deciding how to divide up the money from the project or service they made and sold together, he'd better be upfront with Jim about how much the project was worth, or I'd say that Jim is being defrauded.

>>975769
Is the NEET insufficient to the method, or is the method insufficient to the NEET. Hobbies are silly when there are multitudes that can be done without needing to leave your home very often.

Personally, I might be one if it weren't for the fact that I can't stand being unemployed.

>>975951

So where is this money coming from, and why does John get to decide how to divide it up?

If they were working together, then it should be 50/50. If it's the state deciding who to support, then it should be 50/50.

Only when you let John decide, and only when John and Jim have not worked for the money, can it make sense, or be at all justified, that he would take it all.

>Moreover it's pretty hypocritical when a middle class guy screams the billionaires need to divide their wealth to those less fortunate than them, yet he won't redistribute his 75k salary to the very poor and only keep the bare minimum to survive. People are selfish and nobody really wants to lose what he has, it's always "those other guys" that need to give up their assets.

The bigger hypocrisy is when people complain about welfare cheats, when tax cheats cost a lot more money, and are easier to find.

And the guy making 75k a year is almost certainly working for it. People who make significantly more than that in a year are accruing it in other ways. The guy making 75k shouldn't be paying taxes on that at all, really.

>>975951
The idea of graduated taxation is based at least in part off the idea of the relative, individual worth that a dollar has to a guy with 10 of em vs a guy who has 100.

Individuals can't be assed to think in the long term, or so benevolently towards millions of other fucks they don't know. But taxation and public works benefit the whole in ways that these individuals could not be bothered to unless they've taken a philanthropic position. So we are coerced into cooperation.

Statist4lyf.

>>976029

I don't think the amount of work matters, just the amount of people doing it, and the amount that the thing they make sells for.

>No doubt. Honestly there should be a flat tax on every type of income, best way to avoid tax cheats who just masquerade their income as something else for the more favorable bracket.

Still regressive, and still requires the state to get it's nose into every employer-employee relationship. And people would still avoid it by getting paid in different ways, or just not declaring it.

Just tax property. No way to evade it if you owe it, and easy to avoid it if you don't want to pay taxes. Just include one exemption per citizen for a single property, and that's it.

>>974423
It is thought that the virtuous life is one of excellence and that excellence does not follow from inactivity.

That said, Edison stole everything that made him 'rich' and 'great' and history still thinks well of him due to ignorance.

By contrast the inventor of LEGO died in poverty after his factory burned down again, after his previous factory burned down due to being struck by lightning, after he lost his trade to the Great Depression through factors beyond his control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lego

It's a cracking good tale of the unrecognized creator of a beloved tool for childhood development that immeasurably bettered the world through bloody-minded determination not to see his family starve to death.

Historically being NEET and related to the ruler made you a noble or gentleman/lady. Being a noble and employed was considered beneath one's dignity. This went double for women.

Only with the end of chattel slavery/peasantry following the industrial revolution and it's replacement wage slavery has the prejudice against NEET-ness begun to give vent to prejudice once marshaled around outright biologically informed class prejudice.

The sole purpose of all currency is to provide a medium for wealth redistribution. It is the single most common and most successful government program ever created and upon it all other programs rest.

Further, John in your scenario is not well versed in economics. With the effects of marginal utility on monetary supply, each additional dollar is worth less than the last if no new goods are created to support their valuation.

Assuming only two actors in the economy, the sudden introduction of funds on that scale would create runaway inflation. As a result Jim would be richer and far better off as he was not so heavily invested in the now worthless money.

If only John had the foresight to spread the wealth equally their economy would not seize up for want of a fair medium of exchange.

Ultimately, enlightened self interest demands equality of wealth distribution to permit trade whose sole purpose is to enable wealth redistribution. Failing that, money loses all value as it loses all utility.

>>975901
>>977621
missed link

>>975901
That's pretty unrealistic. Wouldn't Jim just sign a contract to pay John $10,001 if he picked the second option?